Jerusalem vs. Tel Aviv and the battle over Israel’s biblical archaeology

[Disir]

In 1993, archeologists working at the Tel Dan site in northern Israel unearthed an Aramaic inscription featured on a monumental stone jab. Once deciphered, the artifact offered something absolutely unprecedented: the first archeological reference to biblical King David.

The issue of the historicity of the monarch had been debated by scholars for decades within the context of whether the Bible can be considered a historical source and of what role it can play in archeological studies in the land of Israel. From the first European archeologists making their way to the Middle East to explore the Holy Land in the 19th century to this day, the dispute has not ceased.


One side of the spectrum is represented by hardcore “minimalists,” biblical scholars from several Europeans schools of thought that have emerged since the beginning of the 20th century. The most recent of those groups is known as the Copenhagen School, whose representatives believe that the Bible was written in the Persian or even in the Hellenistic period – between the fifth and the second centuries BCE – therefore too late to offer any relevant information on the events of the previous centuries.

On the other side are those taking the Bible quite literally, often as the result of religious beliefs. Many of those scholars are associated with religious groups from abroad, especially from the Christian Evangelical community in America.

https://www.usmessageboard.com/forums/religion-and-ethics.25/post-thread

I think that it depends on what you are going in for.

 

[Picaro]

Archeological finds continue to embarrass those who keep trying to claim the OT is 'fiction'; even much of the timeline issues have been resolved to within a couple hundred years or so in most cases, with the Genesis and Abramic times having the widest ranges. The existence of the 'Habiru' tribes is fairly dated by non-OT sources to at least the 18th century B.C., 'Apiru' in Egyptian.

As for the obsession with 'written' and trying to conflate this with the actual time of 'invention', that is a red herring when determining how long a body of work existed in any culture with a long oral tradition, especially a unique one with an early emphasis on reason and rationalism like the progress of Jewish monotheism. Some Greeks from the later eras even credited Moses with the invention of the Hebrew language and that leading to the invention of the Greek language, and heavily influenced such Greek writers as Plato, such is the esteem they held for the OT books.

Not a lot left to 'dispute', except that assorted sociopaths and mentally ill deviants are obsessed with Da Evul Joos n Xians and cling to retarded assaults on their books.

 

[lennypartiv]

Jerusalem is old hat. Tel Aviv is old hat.

Tell me about this place Yo Semite Park that hit the news recently.

 

[Meriweather]

Tell me about this place Yo Semite Park that hit the news recently.

Ah, the innocent! For those of us who grew up in California and had textbooks that told of the history of the park, we were quite used to first hearing it pronounced by a young voice as Yo Semite. Imagine a teacher asking, "How many of you have heard of, or have been to, Yo Semite?" (And no one raising their hands.) Then asking, "How many of you have heard of, or have been to Yosemite Park?" (And almost everyone raising their hands.)

It appears that East Coast adults, when coming across an unfamiliar word, use the same rules of sounding out words as we learned back in the day. There is an online site where people are asked, "How do you pronounce the name of that town?" Some of the results are hilarious, all interesting. My daughter lives in an area of Utah where those who have lived in the area all of their lives skip over some (what I think) are rather important consonants.

 

[Meriweather]

In 1993, archeologists working at the Tel Dan site in northern Israel unearthed an Aramaic inscription featured on a monumental stone jab. Once deciphered, the artifact offered something absolutely unprecedented: the first archeological reference to biblical King David.

The issue of the historicity of the monarch had been debated by scholars for decades within the context of whether the Bible can be considered a historical source and of what role it can play in archeological studies in the land of Israel. From the first European archeologists making their way to the Middle East to explore the Holy Land in the 19th century to this day, the dispute has not ceased.


One side of the spectrum is represented by hardcore “minimalists,” biblical scholars from several Europeans schools of thought that have emerged since the beginning of the 20th century. The most recent of those groups is known as the Copenhagen School, whose representatives believe that the Bible was written in the Persian or even in the Hellenistic period – between the fifth and the second centuries BCE – therefore too late to offer any relevant information on the events of the previous centuries.

On the other side are those taking the Bible quite literally, often as the result of religious beliefs. Many of those scholars are associated with religious groups from abroad, especially from the Christian Evangelical community in America.

https://www.usmessageboard.com/forums/religion-and-ethics.25/post-thread

I think that it depends on what you are going in for.

If people could accept that our ancestors wrote Biblical events and truths in story form, we might learn a lot. Then if people could accept that our modern archaeologists can supply some dry as dust facts for us to mull over as well, we could all learn so much more about Biblical times. I look forward to what archaeology can fill in about the history of those times.

 

[ding]

In 1993, archeologists working at the Tel Dan site in northern Israel unearthed an Aramaic inscription featured on a monumental stone jab. Once deciphered, the artifact offered something absolutely unprecedented: the first archeological reference to biblical King David.

The issue of the historicity of the monarch had been debated by scholars for decades within the context of whether the Bible can be considered a historical source and of what role it can play in archeological studies in the land of Israel. From the first European archeologists making their way to the Middle East to explore the Holy Land in the 19th century to this day, the dispute has not ceased.


One side of the spectrum is represented by hardcore “minimalists,” biblical scholars from several Europeans schools of thought that have emerged since the beginning of the 20th century. The most recent of those groups is known as the Copenhagen School, whose representatives believe that the Bible was written in the Persian or even in the Hellenistic period – between the fifth and the second centuries BCE – therefore too late to offer any relevant information on the events of the previous centuries.

On the other side are those taking the Bible quite literally, often as the result of religious beliefs. Many of those scholars are associated with religious groups from abroad, especially from the Christian Evangelical community in America.

https://www.usmessageboard.com/forums/religion-and-ethics.25/post-thread

I think that it depends on what you are going in for.

If people could accept that our ancestors wrote Biblical events and truths in story form, we might learn a lot. Then if people could accept that our modern archaeologists can supply some dry as dust facts for us to mull over as well, we could all learn so much more about Biblical times. I look forward to what archaeology can fill in about the history of those times.

And recognize the significance of passing on knowledge and history orally before it was recorded in writing. Specifically how telling these accounts as stories helped to make them easier to remember and pass down the history, knowledge and wisdom that they deemed important to remember and pass down.

 

[Meriweather]

And recognize the significance of passing on knowledge and history orally before it was recorded in writing. Specifically how telling these accounts as stories helped to make them easier to remember and pass down the history, knowledge and wisdom that they deemed important to remember and pass down.

Exactly!